Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 413 posts

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#61

Post by RUG3Y »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #35

This raises an interesting idea: why not create two passwords for encrypted drives, one password decrypt the drive, another password completely wipes the drive. This way if someone is forced to give a password to decrypt something, that password renders the data moot. Thoughts?

I've thought of this but it usually takes some time to overwrite a lot of data. I'm not savvy enough to know if there's a way to nuke the data that quickly, other than non-software methods.

A friend of mine used to keep a massive electromagnet in is PC tower, that would theoretically wipe the hard drives when switched on. We never tried it. (He wasn't dealing in CP, just pirating mass quantities of movies and music).

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#62

Post by shard972 »

eridius wrote: post #52
smsm42 wrote: post #16

This reads as extremely bizarre. I mean, reading the fifth amendment makes it pretty clear - no one should be compelled to witness against oneself. However, it looks like the current executive and judicial are thinking "well, those Founders were just idiots for putting such an amendment in, clearly it'd be much easier to prosecute people if we could compel them to witness against themselves, so why don't we just igno…

The argument made in the article is that it's a "foregone conclusion" that there's child porn on the drives, so decrypting them isn't self-incriminating because they already know what's on the drive. That said, personally I don't buy it. What if there's evidence of other illegal acts on the drive too, ones the police don't know about? Then decrypting the drive would definitely be incriminating because it would tell p…

> The argument made in the article is that it's a "foregone conclusion" that there's child porn on the drives, so decrypting them isn't self-incriminating because they already know what's on the drive.

The immediate thought that comes to my head when they say this is: Then whats the problem? You can prove it, so why do you need more proof? Unless your possibly maybe your case isn't rock solid or you want to find more crimes.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#64

Post by _xhok »

hackuser wrote: post #56

Some discussion overlooks that this is a special case: ... the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional…

The critical question is, why haven't they charged him? It is disingenuous of them to bring up the evidence they currently have essentially in an attempt to demonize him. Their evidence is sufficient or it isn't; if it is they should charge him; if not they're demanding self-incrimination.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#65

Post by hackuser »

hackuser wrote: post #56

Some discussion overlooks that this is a special case: ... the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional…

And for ease of reading, I'll reply to my own comment with other interesting issues:

* "The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," [his attorney] Donoghue said in a telephone interview. It seems a warrant is at issue, if I understand correctly.

* The contempt-of-court order against Rawls was obtained by authorities citing the 1789 All Writs Act. The All Writs Act was the same law the Justice Department asserted in its legal battle with Apple

* The authorities, however, said no testimony was needed from Rawls. Rather, they said, (PDF) "he can keep his passwords to himself" and "produce his computer and hard drives in an unencrypted state."

* My completely amateur thoughts: If they already can prove he has child porn, then they don't need the additional evidence. If they do need the additional evidence, then he is incriminating himself.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#66

Post by a3n »

shard972 wrote: post #62
eridius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument made in the article is that it's a "foregone conclusion" that there's child porn on the drives, so decrypting them isn't self-incriminating because they already know what's on the drive. That said, personally I don't buy it. What if there's evidence of other illegal acts on the drive too, ones the police don't know about? Then decrypting the drive would definitely be incriminating because it would tell p…

> The argument made in the article is that it's a "foregone conclusion" that there's child porn on the drives, so decrypting them isn't self-incriminating because they already know what's on the drive. The immediate thought that comes to my head when they say this is: Then whats the problem? You can prove it, so why do you need more proof? Unless your possibly maybe your case isn't rock solid or you want to find more…

yeah, if it's a foregone conclusion, then why isn't the trial over and time being served?

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#68

Post by naasking »

paulddraper wrote: post #41
smsm42 wrote: post #16

This reads as extremely bizarre. I mean, reading the fifth amendment makes it pretty clear - no one should be compelled to witness against oneself. However, it looks like the current executive and judicial are thinking "well, those Founders were just idiots for putting such an amendment in, clearly it'd be much easier to prosecute people if we could compel them to witness against themselves, so why don't we just igno…

It's not as black and white as you make it. If there is a warrant to search my property, I am obligated to assist if required. E.g. open the gun safe. (Hey, speaking of guns...You know what other antedquated amendment from the Founding Fathers would be really convenient to ignore...) Now, AFAIK, no one has tested whether that still hold true of a combination safe, where the access substaintivly requires information f…

> If there is a warrant to search my property, I am obligated to assist if required.

I'm not sure that's true, the police are authorized to break whatever they need to if you don't assist.

As for combo safes, this seems like a good overview: http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-criminals-s...

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#69

Post by nickpsecurity »

hackuser wrote: post #65
hackuser wrote: post #56

Some discussion overlooks that this is a special case: ... the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional…

And for ease of reading, I'll reply to my own comment with other interesting issues: * "The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," [his attorney] Donoghue said in a telephone interview . It seems a warrant is at issue, if I understand correctly. * The contempt-of-court order against Rawls was obtained by authorities citing the 1789 All Writs Act. The All Writs Act was the same law the Justice Depa…

"My completely amateur thoughts: If they already can prove he has child porn, then they don't need the additional evidence. If they do need the additional evidence, then he is incriminating himself."

That's a good point. They either have proof he downloaded child porn or they don't. They're definitely trying to do more than prove it. Probably set a precedent increasing their power as usual.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#70

Post by M_Grey »

goodplay wrote: post #42

Sitting directly in front of me are two moderately large encrypted hard drives the passwords for which I forgot. If I get a subpoena to produce their contents, I will potentially remain in jail of the rest of my life for the crime of being forgetful. That judge's behavior and (the laws that enables it) is sickening. You either have enough evidence to convict a person, or you don't.

More and more I'm convinced that the only solution is data destruction on a fail-deadly system. Like a warrant canary, if it's your default operation, you should be alright. As I always add though, don't keep your family photos on that drive.
Post reply on HN